I just don't understand mailing someone poison. Even assuming it did reach your target what do you think they're going to do, huff the strange powder that fell out of the hate mail you just sent them? Maybe next time include a note that says "free cocaine sample". I feel like you'd have better luck actually mailing them a rattlesnake or a box of spiders.

To The Escape Zeppelin!:I just don't understand mailing someone poison. Even assuming it did reach your target what do you think they're going to do, huff the strange powder that fell out of the hate mail you just sent them? Maybe next time include a note that says "free cocaine sample". I feel like you'd have better luck actually mailing them a rattlesnake or a box of spiders.

In this case, she didn't want to poison anyone. She wanted her husband sent to federal prison so she could get an easy win in divorce court.

To The Escape Zeppelin!:I just don't understand mailing someone poison. Even assuming it did reach your target what do you think they're going to do, huff the strange powder that fell out of the hate mail you just sent them? Maybe next time include a note that says "free cocaine sample". I feel like you'd have better luck actually mailing them a rattlesnake or a box of spiders.

Dear Jerk:Something that's not discussed much is the difference between god-given, inalienable rights, and constitutionally guaranteed rights. God did not grace anyone with the right to own an assault rifle.

update: If it's phrased as natural vs legal rights, then it is discussed much. Just not in Derpistan.

Read the constitution carefully. It says that rights are granted by your creator (whether that's God, or Your Mom, is left to interpretation). $Creator graces everyone with rights such as access to an assault rifle, purple fuzzy slippers or sexytime with Scarlett Johannsen, but only one of those rights is protected by the constituion against interference from the government. For the other two, YMMV.

DeathCipris:FTA: "...including her alleged failure of a lie detector test..."

The machines does not detect lies. It detects stress.

The machines do not detect stress. They detect physiological changes or states that are typically exhibited when the subject is, among other states, suffering from anxiety or stress. Particularly if it is concentrated in time, such as when a person is trying to present a falsehood and anxious about it being accepted.

Flab:Dear Jerk: Something that's not discussed much is the difference between god-given, inalienable rights, and constitutionally guaranteed rights. God did not grace anyone with the right to own an assault rifle.

update: If it's phrased as natural vs legal rights, then it is discussed much. Just not in Derpistan.

Read the constitution carefully. It says that rights are granted by your creator (whether that's God, or Your Mom, is left to interpretation). $Creator graces everyone with rights such as access to an assault rifle, purple fuzzy slippers or sexytime with Scarlett Johannsen, but only one of those rights is protected by the constituion against interference from the government. For the other two, YMMV.

Nope, inalienable rights are rights that no one, not even the government, can take away. The constitution mentions inalienable rights. To put it in American terms, you have the inalienable right to enjoy the fruits of your labor(no slavery (for humans), taxes must include representation). Many of the founding fathers were not pleased with the constitution because it lacked a bill of rights. So they tacked on a bill of rights. The bill of rights is a list of some legal rights. There is a process for altering these rights.

Dear Jerk:Flab: Dear Jerk: Something that's not discussed much is the difference between god-given, inalienable rights, and constitutionally guaranteed rights. God did not grace anyone with the right to own an assault rifle.

update: If it's phrased as natural vs legal rights, then it is discussed much. Just not in Derpistan.

Read the constitution carefully. It says that rights are granted by your creator (whether that's God, or Your Mom, is left to interpretation). $Creator graces everyone with rights such as access to an assault rifle, purple fuzzy slippers or sexytime with Scarlett Johannsen, but only one of those rights is protected by the constituion against interference from the government. For the other two, YMMV.

Nope, inalienable rights are rights that no one, not even the government, can take away. The constitution mentions inalienable rights. To put it in American terms, you have the inalienable right to enjoy the fruits of your labor(no slavery (for humans), taxes must include representation). Many of the founding fathers were not pleased with the constitution because it lacked a bill of rights. So they tacked on a bill of rights. The bill of rights is a list of some legal rights. There is a process for altering these rights.

I agree with every word you said, except the "nope" at the beginning. You are not contradicting me.

Flab - I am contradicting you. Gun rights were not bestowed by the creator. Gun rights are not inalienable. Gun rights do not rise to the level of human rights. Sexytime with Scarlett Johannsen is a privilege, not a right.

Dear Jerk:Flab - I am contradicting you. Gun rights were not bestowed by the creator. Gun rights are not inalienable. Gun rights do not rise to the level of human rights. Sexytime with Scarlett Johannsen is a privilege, not a right.

Why are you all arguing about gun rights. This isn't about gun rights. This is about a lady who tried to set up her husband so she could get everything in a divorce.

We aren't. I was arguing about the right to fluffy purple slippers. I think Dear Jerk took offense to the fact that in the letters, she refered to the right to bear arms as being a God-given right. I don,t wish to pretend that I know what goes on in his head, but i get the feeling that his issue is with the "God-given", and not the "bear arms" part of her statement.

Besides, it's Fark. Even in a cute red headed chick thread, we'll find ways to argue about minutiae and semantics.

My final post on the matter - The letter writer implys that his right to bear arms is a natural right, when in fact it is merely a legal right. Proof: constitutional (legal) rights are alterable by a vote of the states. Natural laws are not. I'm just sick of gun nuts.

ongbok:Dear Jerk: Flab - I am contradicting you. Gun rights were not bestowed by the creator. Gun rights are not inalienable. Gun rights do not rise to the level of human rights. Sexytime with Scarlett Johannsen is a privilege, not a right.

Why are you all arguing about gun rights. This isn't about gun rights. This is about a lady who tried to set up her husband so she could get everything in a divorce.

It's monday - we're too early in the week for a misogyny thread, so it's about guns by default.

The Declaration of Independence uses "creator", but it's not actually a governing document, and the only rights it lists are vague. It's mostly a list of complaints. Interestingly, the three of those are complaining that the king didn't pass more laws.

JustGetItRight:To The Escape Zeppelin!: I just don't understand mailing someone poison. Even assuming it did reach your target what do you think they're going to do, huff the strange powder that fell out of the hate mail you just sent them? Maybe next time include a note that says "free cocaine sample". I feel like you'd have better luck actually mailing them a rattlesnake or a box of spiders.

In this case, she didn't want to poison anyone. She wanted her husband sent to federal prison so she could get an easy win in divorce court.

Dear Jerk:Flab: Dear Jerk: Something that's not discussed much is the difference between god-given, inalienable rights, and constitutionally guaranteed rights. God did not grace anyone with the right to own an assault rifle.

update: If it's phrased as natural vs legal rights, then it is discussed much. Just not in Derpistan.

Read the constitution carefully. It says that rights are granted by your creator (whether that's God, or Your Mom, is left to interpretation). $Creator graces everyone with rights such as access to an assault rifle, purple fuzzy slippers or sexytime with Scarlett Johannsen, but only one of those rights is protected by the constituion against interference from the government. For the other two, YMMV.

Nope, inalienable rights are rights that no one, not even the government, can take away. The constitution mentions inalienable rights. To put it in American terms, you have the inalienable right to enjoy the fruits of your labor(no slavery (for humans), taxes must include representation). Many of the founding fathers were not pleased with the constitution because it lacked a bill of rights. So they tacked on a bill of rights. The bill of rights is a list of some legal rights. There is a process for altering these rights.